Standing Committee F

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am genuinely puzzled about something. I do not know whether there is a mechanism for resolving it and I seek your guidance. Ideally, we should not have completed the clause 8 stand part debate because information in my hand shows that the Minister's comments to the Committee in that debate were entirely inconsistent with what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs says on its website.
 On the current DEFRA website, rural development has links to the hunting with dogs page, the rural economy and communities web page also has such links, and until 20 December the landscape and recreation website was linked to hunting with dogs. In other words, DEFRA's website tells us that hunting with dogs has an impact on landscape and recreation and the rural economy and communities. Can the Minister deny that?

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, but the Chair does not accept it as a point of order.Clause 9 The Registrar

Clause 9 - The Registrar

Hywel Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 192, in
clause 9, page 3, line 32, at beginning insert 'As regards England'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 193, in 
clause 9, page 3, line 33, after 'register', insert ' in England'.
 Amendment No. 194, in 
clause 9, page 3, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) As regards Wales, the National Assembly for Wales shall appoint a person (''the registrar'') to maintain a register in Wales for the purposes of this Act.'.
 Amendment No. 195, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 7, leave out from 'be' to end and insert 
 'separate Hunting Tribunals serving England and Wales'.
 Amendment No. 229, in 
schedule 2, page 25, line 4, at end add— 
 '( ) The Tribunal shall sit in Wales when deliberating Welsh cases.'.
 Amendment No. 196, in 
clause 23, Page 9, line 6, at end insert— 
 '( ) shall, in Wales, make provision for a Welsh language version of the register to be made available for inspection by the public at all reasonable times, and'.
 New clause 13—Application to Wales— 
'In application to Wales, this Part, except section 9 (1), has effect as if for any reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.'.
 Amendment No. 190, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 15, at beginning insert 'As regards England'.
 Amendment No. 191, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 16, at end insert— 
 '( ) As regards Wales the National Assembly for Wales may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting.'.
 Amendment No. 197, in 
clause 48, page 19, line 3, after 'Chancellor', insert 
 'or the National Assembly for Wales'.
 Amendment No. 198, in 
clause 48, page 19, line 4, at beginning insert 'As regards England'.
 Amendment No. 199, in 
clause 48, page 19, line 5, at end insert— 
 '( ) As regards Wales, an order of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales under this Act may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.'.
 Amendment No. 200, in 
clause 48, page 19, line 6, at beginning insert 'As regards England'.
 Amendment No. 201, in 
clause 48, page 19, line 7, at end insert— 
 '( ) As regards Wales, regulations and rules under this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.'.
 Amendment No. 202, in 
clause 48, page 19, line 9, after 'Chancellor' insert 
 'or the National Assembly for Wales'.

Hywel Williams: We are not short of disagreements on hunting, as we have seen during the past few days, and we are not short of people who will take up defensive positions on hunting. As has been said many times, although hunting is not the most important issue before the House, it must be settled in a way that will last. When replying on Tuesday, the Minister said that he wanted the legislation to be practical and enforceable.
 The Bill as drafted will establish a registrar and tribunal on an England and Wales basis. The amendments would lead to the appointment of a registrar for Wales by the National Assembly for Wales, who would comply with any new regulations made by the Assembly, and the establishment of a hunting tribunal for Wales alongside one for England. The register would be available in Welsh. The National Assembly for Wales would make regulations about the form of registration and cases from Wales would be heard in Wales. The amendments would replace references to the Secretary of State with references to the National Assembly for Wales and provide for the use of the Welsh language in Wales. 
 If accepted, the amendments would improve the chances of the successful and practical application of the law in Wales. There would be a greater likelihood of the law being willingly accepted by all parties involved. The bodies that would make decisions on 
 hunting questions, especially in difficult cases, to which the Minister has referred, would be seen to be answerable directly to the elected body that deals with the majority of rural affairs in Wales—the National Assembly. 
 The Minister said, in Hansard, on 16 December: 
''The registrar and tribunal will be required simply to interpret the legislation as similarly appointed tribunals do in other spheres, such as employment and housing.''—[Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 396, c. 580.]
 A Wales-based registrar and tribunal would be better able to interpret the legislation, with their particular knowledge and experience of hunting issues in Wales. What is serious damage to the flock of a Welsh hill farmer on marginal land might be different from what is serious damage to a farmer in East Anglia. Biological diversity is just that—diversity. A Welsh registrar and tribunal would be more likely to have the knowledge and experience to interpret the law in such particular cases. 
 The amendments aim to promote the efficient application of the law and to secure the greatest possible relevance and legitimacy for people in Wales who will have dealings with the registrar and tribunal. That would be superior to dealing with a registrar and tribunal that are national for England and Wales, to use the Minister's formulation. 
 I do not intend to list all the ways in which rural life in Wales is unique. The Government accept that it is different from rural life in England and that it needs to be dealt with in ways that are relevant to Wales. In recognition of that fact, the National Assembly for Wales has been given wide responsibilities for rural affairs. 
 However, farms are smaller, the average age of the Welsh farmer is 58, farm incomes, on average, are half what they are in England and there is much upland farming, which is economically marginal and may be severely affected by fox predation. In many cases, foxes are hunted on foot by groups of local farmers as a matter of utility, not for sport or recreation. The particular circumstances in Wales are partly recognised in the Bill under clause 12(2).

Nicholas Soames: Although I recognise the very great force of the hon. Gentleman's argument about utility and the fact that farmers group together to hunt the fox in very difficult and often hostile territory, hunting is also a great social bond in the community. He should not resile from the fact that hunting foxes in that way is great fun, as well as being very useful.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point, in that foxhunting, like other aspects of Welsh rural life such as co-operating on the harvest, is an example of the traditional way in which things are done in Wales. I take his point, but I am sure that my hill farmer constituents put the utility argument first.
 Clause 12(2), which recognises the particular circumstances in Wales, states: 
''The Countryside Council for Wales may provide advice on request to the registrar or the Tribunal about the exercise of a function under this Act in relation to Wales.''
 Much of the work of DEFRA in England is devolved through the National Assembly. It may not be the resounding success that some of us had hoped for, but its work in agriculture is considered by many to be an exception to the rule.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman says that the National Assembly has not been a resounding success. Does he agree that the Welsh Assembly's method of processing payments for the sheep annual premium has been worse than DEFRA's, and that it is an example of how Welsh farmers have been penalised by a Welsh-only solution?

Hywel Williams: Clearly, Welsh farmers have great reservations about some aspects of agricultural support in Wales. The matter of SAP payments has been raised by some of my colleagues, not only in Westminster but in Cardiff. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the operations of the National Assembly for Wales during the foot and mouth crisis, for example, were far superior to those of other bodies.
 The measures in the Bill would give us an opportunity to build on the success of the National Assembly for Wales. Many UK public bodies have a Welsh incarnation. Wales has an agricultural land tribunal, a mental heath review tribunal, a registered inspectors of schools tribunal, a rent assessment panel and a valuation tribunal, and many other bodies have less formal Welsh arrangements. 
 If I may digress briefly to my own field of social policy, over several years we have developed a training and education body. It has grown from one person coming from Bristol for half a day a week and sitting next to a largely silent telephone to a fully functioning office for Wales, which provides all the services provided previously from Bristol and London and much more of great relevance to the field of social policy. 
 Such bodies co-operate happily with the similar bodies in England. The new Audit Commission for Wales was set up under devolution as a Welsh body. It works with the Audit Commission in England with no trouble at all, as far as I know. Its website states: 
''Our work aims to meet the unique needs of Welsh public services and to reflect the cultural, social and economic environments in Wales.''
 Significantly, it says: 
''But we continue to work in close partnership with our colleagues at the Audit Commission in England.''
 The former Secretary of State, now the Minister, said in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), 
''devolution means partnership between the two bodies, rather than the separation that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) obviously wants''.—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 892W.]
 I do not know whether he wants that separation, but the principle is partnership, and I agree with it. In an answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), the Minister also said: 
''The job of the National Assembly is to make the current devolution settlement work. It is a good settlement, which provides an opportunity for those who have been elected to the Assembly by the people of Wales to bring accountability and creativity to bear on policies directly affecting Wales.''—[Official Report, 7 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 1014.]
 I would contend that the Bill directly affects Wales, and there is an opportunity for the National Assembly to bring accountability and creativity to the process. 
 Some hon. Members have expressed understandable concerns that setting up such a body might lead to difficulties across the border. We had interesting debates on the matter when we discussed setting up specifically Welsh public bodies during the recent Committee stage of the Health (Wales) Bill. Some hon. Members expressed concerns that setting up bodies such as Health Professions Wales would lead to greater divergence between the health service in Wales and that in England. We heard a robust and effective response, which was made not by some wild-eyed separatist, or extreme nationalist, but by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales has many fine qualities, but he is no wild-eyed separatist—quite the contrary. As he pointed out many times, and with the full support of Government Members, there is no reason why Welsh bodies that are responsive to Welsh needs should not co-operate happily and successively with their counterparts in England. 
 A powerful illustration of the argument for having a registrar and a tribunal for Wales is language use. I should like to consider that issue a little further. Welsh is spoken by supporters and opponents of hunting in Wales. Welsh is spoken by about 20 per cent. of people across the country, but a much higher percentage of people in rural Wales speak and use Welsh as their language of everyday use. About 80 per cent. of people in my constituency speak Welsh as their daily language, and up to 93 per cent. do so in the neighbouring constituency of Conwy. In many rural and upland areas, particularly in the north and west, rural life goes on from day to day without the use of English, in the public and private spheres. 
 As a case in point, I spent three busy days in my constituency last weekend. I spoke English three times in three days. I did so twice while canvassing the support of English incomers during a local election campaign. I am happy to say that I received that support. I also spoke English during a back-to-back television interview, in which I did the interview in Welsh first and then, as a matter of courtesy, in English for the English news. That is the social reality of language use that the registrar must be able to address. 
 In Wales, the registrar and the tribunals will have to be able to work though the medium of Welsh effectively and as a matter of course. Otherwise, how will they be able to deal with cases presented in Welsh? Applications, objections and registration in Welsh should be enabled. The register should be kept in Welsh from day one. We should not underestimate the symbolic significance of that in garnering acceptance of the law. 
 The Welsh Language Act 1993, which was passed by a Conservative Government, states that the Welsh and English languages should be treated on the basis of equality. The common experience of those who wish to use the Welsh language with public bodies, however, is that those bodies that have a Welsh incarnation can use the language with little fuss from day one because it is normal in their operation. Bodies based in England that serve Wales from without have much more trouble in responding to the requirements of a bilingual country. 
 More significantly, the Welsh language does not often seem to be on the agenda of organisations working from England. Welsh speakers, and others, perceive that those organisations see Welsh as an after-thought, nuisance or diversion from their main business. Rightly or wrongly, those are the perceptions of Welsh speakers and others. Dealing with the public in Welsh as an afterthought often leads to delay, expense, misdirected spending and waste, which are the results of the token implementation of the 1993 Act. 
 Not producing translations also causes problems. A case in point is the experience of many Welsh rural communities during the foot and mouth outbreak. For example—this is pertinent—the forms for the altered movement of livestock scheme were not available in Welsh from the very start. Farmers who wanted the forms in Welsh came into local offices, but the forms were not available. My local authority, Gwynedd county council, was so exasperated by the lack of translated forms that it translated them itself, only to be told by DEFRA that it was acting ultra vires, which was a problem. Those members of the public who merely wished to deal with a public body in Welsh in the normal course of everyday life rather than as an exception became increasingly frustrated with DEFRA, about which they had negative feelings. Those feelings have created a long hangover of resentment. 
 The 1993 Act requires public bodies to produce language schemes detailing how they will treat the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality. However, 10 years after the introduction of the Act, some public bodies are still producing their schemes and others—often quasi-public bodies—either implement their schemes in a partial way or deny that they are subject to the Act. We need to avoid that source of disagreement and resentment. A Welsh registrar and tribunal would be more likely to operate on a bilingual basis from the very start. That would be consistent with the language requirements of all shades of opinion on the hunting issue in Wales. Both those who are in favour of hunting and those who are against it want to use Welsh, so it would be likely to inspire the trust, respect and confidence in the law that both applicants and objectors should have. 
 The amendments are concerned with effective devolution. They follow practice that has already proved to be effective since the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales. Will they make the application of the law and the sequential tests more effective in Wales? I contend that they would. They would make it more likely that applicants and 
 objectors would feel that they had taken part in a real, relevant and fair process. 
 Let us not add to the scope for disagreement in Wales over hunting by putting in place a structure that might be less effective and responsive to the pertinent arguments from both sides of the debate that relate to hunting in Wales. Let us make the Bill better by accepting the amendments.

Edward Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing to the Committee's attention a matter that would have been either brushed aside or ignored.
 I cannot claim any particular knowledge of Wales, except that I went to Jesus college Oxford, where I met many Welsh people, not least because 80 per cent. of undergraduates and 50 per cent. of postgraduates at that college were from Wales. About 10 or 15 per cent. of them thought of English as their second language. To engage in the intellectual and academic activities at the college and the university they had to suppress their Welshness to a certain extent. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, outside of tutorials and the public arena, the Welshness of the Welsh at Jesus college was very pronounced and something of which they were hugely proud. That was the position in the early 1970s and I daresay that it is still the position. 
 The hon. Gentleman's arguments about the need to recognise the Welsh element of the Bill, and the implications for it, are not simply symbolic, as he suggested, but are matters of great practicality. That is indicated by his example: he said that during his campaigning in recent elections he spoke English on only three occasions. In another example, farmers in his constituency required forms to be in Welsh, but they were not provided in that language. That is a matter of great note and importance.

Albert Owen: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the 1993 Act already provides for that? The matter would be dealt with under the provisions of that Act, if the registrar and tribunal system came into being.

Edward Garnier: I do not deny that for a moment, but that does not gainsay any of the arguments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). I know that it is difficult for the Labour party to see the Welsh National party gaining ground on them in local government elections and in the Welsh European parliamentary elections. In the south Wales valleys—[Interruption.] I will not waste my time replying to everything that is said.
 The simple point is that a domestic Welsh political agenda is creating controversy between the Welsh National party and the Labour party. That is a matter for them to sort out. The Minister was one of the victims of the internal spats—this has got absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Bill and I am amazed that it has been brought up—and was ejected from his office in Cardiff. That is by the bye. 
 I shall concentrate on the amendments, which are worthy of discussion and consideration. Whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) thinks that they are worth accepting is another matter. It is important that the hon. Member for Caernarfon has the opportunity to comment on his amendments and that the Committee has the opportunity to respond. 
 One of the underlying messages that I received from the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the Bill may well fail to tackle the question of effective devolution. Labour Members are obviously fascinated by Welsh devolution and its implications for the Bill and it is right that they should be. The question of Welsh separateness and the Welsh identity is something that the registration system should take into account, not least because Wales is a geographically, culturally and linguistically separate part of the United Kingdom. There are also many differences within Wales. The constituency of the hon. Member for Caernarfon, who moved the amendment, could not be more different from, for example, the constituency of the Minister—the former Secretary of State for Wales and First Minister for Wales.

Hywel Williams: An interesting similarity is that the western part of my constituency, which many see as being the most Welsh-speaking area of Wales, has about 18,000 Welsh speakers, whereas the city represented by the Minister has, I think, 26,000 Welsh speakers. In some ways, the Minister's constituency is more Welsh than my own.

Edward Garnier: From Market Harborough, they all look Welsh to me.

Alun Michael: That is illuminating. The hon. Member for Caernarfon is correct in his observation and the reason is the encouragement of the Welsh language in schools and through education, from which my own children have benefited. They went through Welsh language education in Cardiff as a result of the actions of a strong Labour authority and the Labour party's encouragement for the Welsh language.

George Stevenson: Order. I accept entirely that the use of the Welsh language is pertinent to the argument, but we do not want to enter into a debate on the Welsh language.

Edward Garnier: I suspect that the proportion of Welsh speakers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and his county is rather greater than in the city of Cardiff. However, let us leave the subject there for the moment. Others may feel it appropriate to return to it, but I shall follow the rules of the House and continue to speak in English, which is the language I understand best. I suspect that if I attempted to speak in Welsh, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) would tell me that you were about to get cross, Mr. Stevenson.
 Despite its industrial heartland in the south-east, Wales is predominantly a rural country and it is not surprising that there are 49 registered packs of hounds in the Principality, including foxhounds, mink hounds and beagles. I understand that about 3,500 horses are used predominantly for hunting. The total annual attendance at meets of packs registered with the 
 Masters of Foxhounds Association in Wales is around 120,000, of which 50,000 are mounted and 70,000 are foot followers. Those figures come from information in the document on the social and economic implications of foxhunting in Wales, which was published in 2001. That demonstrates that although the overall population of Wales in relation to Scotland and England is relatively small, the proportion who participate in hunting, directly or indirectly, is correspondingly higher, so particular attention should be paid to the hon. Gentleman's argument for a Welsh element in the Bill. I suspect that even electors in the Principality who do not support the Welsh National party would agree with some of his arguments about the need for acceptance and understanding of the Welshness of Wales in so far as hunting is concerned. The hunting people of Wales would point out that the topography of Wales does not allow the same sort of arguments to be used against hunting as might apply in lowland areas of England or the south of Scotland.

James Gray: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the topography of Wales is a specific reason why it would be wrong for marksmen, far less a farmer with a shotgun, to be out on a rugged hillside shooting foxes if hunting were banned?

Edward Garnier: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although the former Secretary of State for Wales and former First Minister made many visits to the rural areas of Wales in the course of his official duties during the short time that he held those offices and, for all I know, the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for fishing, may have been to coastal Wales, I fear that direct understanding of the Welsh rural community is lacking among many members of the Labour Government.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. and learned Friend share my concern that if hunting with hounds is done away with, particularly in areas of military activity such as the Brecon Beacons, we would invite a lot of trouble if we let loose a whole lot of people trying to shoot quarry with high-velocity rifles?

Edward Garnier: We should all be concerned about the unrestricted use of high-velocity rifles, whether in rural areas deep in the Brecon Beacons or more marginal areas with higher population densities in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. In any event, I suspect that the population of rural Wales would not welcome a move to restrict the use of firearms to the culling of foxes and the control of pests. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who represents a rural farming area, on that subject.
 I shall quote from the Burns report, although I hesitate to do so because Committee members probably know it by heart. It says that 
''over a third of the cull of foxes in mid-Wales is the result of terrier work''.
 I suspect that an even higher proportion of the cull of foxes for pest control reasons in the Principality is carried out with the use of dogs of one kind or another.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the common misconceptions about the apparently small number of foxes killed using dogs throughout the United Kingdom is that that number is evenly distributed? In places such as Montgomeryshire, as much as two thirds of the fox cull, and perhaps even more, is carried out by hunting with dogs. Lord Burns acknowledged that and believed that hunting with dogs could be the most effective means of fox control in such areas.

Edward Garnier: I think that the figure for the proportion of foxes culled in Wales by the use of some sort of dogs—whether hounds or terriers—is 67 per cent. That seems to have passed by the Bill's draftsmen and those who have political control over it. It is pertinent for the two Opposition Members who represent Welsh seats to bring their direct knowledge of their local areas to the Committee so that we can consider whether the Bill will do what it claims to intend: provide the most humane way of controlling the obvious pest recognised by those who live and work in the farming constituencies of the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Caernarfon.
 Paragraph 5.24 of the Burns report states that efficient lamping—the use of torches, headlights or other lamps to light up foxes to allow a good shot at them— 
''requires good vehicular access. Its usefulness can therefore be limited in areas with rough terrain and steep slopes. It also requires terrain that allows safe shooting.''
 It is worth noting that a .275 rifle and a .303 rifle—high-velocity rifles, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said a moment ago—are weapons that can be lethal at a range of more than two miles. Burns says that a further 
''limiting factor is the extent of vegetative cover.''
 It is accepted that lamping has its limitations. It can be time consuming, it is not always suited to the terrain and night shooting can give rise to concerns among those living in the area. That is to put it mildly. Lord Burns continued: 
''The use of shotguns, especially in daylight, involves welfare implications. We received a good deal of evidence arguing that it was not easy to shoot foxes and that a fair number were wounded. We suspect that this is correct, given that foxes are relatively small animals.''
 I have shot a fox in Wales. [Interruption.] I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that I would never shoot a fox in Leicestershire. I shot it in north Pembrokeshire. I have no idea whether there is a pack of foxhounds there and perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell me. If not, no doubt Members who represent Welsh constituencies can do so.

Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Edward Garnier: Let me just finish my sentence, because I know that my hon. Friend is about to criticise me for having shot a fox. I shot it in north Pembrokeshire because—

George Stevenson: Order. I hesitate to interject, but I am a little concerned that we are moving away from the subject of establishing a registrar in Wales. I hope
 that the hon. and learned Gentleman will return to that.

Edward Garnier: It may seem that I am getting to the church by way of the moon, but I can assure you, Mr. Stevenson, that the example that I am about to give is entirely pertinent to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caernarfon.

Nicholas Soames: Will my hon. and learned Friend describe to the Committee the circumstances under which he committed that act of vulpicide?

Edward Garnier: I am not sure that I would describe it as vulpicide. The dairy farmer on whose land I was would describe it as pesticide, and so would I. The circumstances were just such as a registrar dealing with a Welsh application will have to consider. It is his local knowledge, and the evidence that local farmers in Wales will be able to give to a knowledgeable registrar, that will be pertinent to the granting of a licence under the clause 8 tests.
 I was in a steep wooded valley on the banks of a river. The range at which I shot the fox was approximately the same as the distance that the Minister is from me. I was able to get a good clean lung shot and the beast died at once. However, as the registrar in Wales will have to bear in mind, it is not always possible to get that close to a fox, let alone a Welsh Minister, and get a good clean shot. Furthermore, I was using a 12-bore shotgun and ammunition more suitable for the disposal of game birds than for the disposal of foxes. I was lucky to be able to get so close. I am fearful that, if Welsh farmers and their agents are unable to use dogs of any kind to control foxes, there will be more indiscriminate use of shotguns, leading to the wounding and the slow and agonising death of foxes, of which no Committee member would approve.

Lembit Öpik: It is worth emphasising, as I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, that many of the farmers of mid-Wales—this is certainly the case in Montgomeryshire, Caernarfon and, I imagine, Ceredigion—regard foxes as a pest. If they cannot use their preferred method of pest control, namely killing foxes with dogs, they will go out and use whatever means they have available. They are very unlikely to buy a new gun to do the job. The hon. and learned Gentleman's point, therefore, is completely correct. In my judgment, it will probably diminish, not improve, the welfare of the fox if we do not give this dispensation to Wales.

Edward Garnier: It is just such factors that the registrar in Wales ought to bear in mind. That returns us directly to the amendments.
 I want to underline the importance of foxhounds and dogs in general to the Welsh rural economy, shown especially during the foot and mouth crisis of the past year or so. A survey of a third of foxhound packs across the United Kingdom in the summer of 2001 found that the temporary suspension of hunting owing to foot and mouth had reduced their normal fox 
 cull by 4,900. There were 4,700 calls from farmers asking for assistance with fox damage, and Welsh farms in sheep rearing areas lost an average of £500 in stock value from additional fox predation. Since the resumption of hunting—on 17 December 2001 in some areas and a little later in others—there is clear evidence from standard reporting forms from hunts that many areas have unusually large concentrations of undispersed foxes. 
 The Farmers Union of Wales has said of the fox population: 
''The ban on foxhunting over the last year has led to an explosion in the population to unprecedented levels. In some cases, farmers who lost six or seven lambs to foxes normally have seen the numbers they lose jump to between 35 and 40.''
 The union wrote to the Federation of Welsh Packs on 18 October 2001 stating: 
''All Counties in Wales have reported an increase in fox numbers and predation since the Hunting Authorities commenced their voluntary ban on 22 February 2001. The Union's County Branches are receiving an increasing number of calls from farmers concerned at the effects of a protracted ban on fox control during the autumn period . . . feedback from members demonstrates a growing concern about the rising fox population, which needs urgent action before next year's lambing season.''
 I am concerned that the Government, by introducing the Bill in its current form, are attempting to think of the issue in an entirely homogenous way. England and Wales are no different, nor is Sussex different from Leicestershire, Norfolk, Montgomeryshire or Pembrokeshire. It is vital that the hon. Member for Caernarfon can persuade the Government and members of the Committee that the Welsh aspect of this problem should be properly recognised and considered.

Alun Michael: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman also argue for devolution to the regions of England in the operation of this Bill?

Edward Garnier: No, I would not, for two reasons. First, England, like Wales, is an identifiable political and geographical unit, despite the fact that there are many regional and local differences between aspects of the country. Secondly, the less government and fewer bureaucrats, Secretaries of State or their equivalent we have, the better; certainly for the tax-paying public who end up paying for all those people.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the context of government in Wales is different, given that we already have a National Assembly for Wales? We are dealing here with real matters, not conjecture. The legislative context for the Welsh language is different, in that we have the Welsh Language Act 1993, which was enacted under a Conservative Government. Those are real differences, not conjecture.

Edward Garnier: Yes, I understand the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
 I touched briefly on the risk of wounding with a shotgun in my discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex when we were talking about the local knowledge a registrar will need when he considers an application for a licence for a hunting pack, individual or group in Wales. The risk of 
 wounding with a shotgun is even greater than with a rifle.

Nicholas Soames: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point, but he does not make enough of it. The risk of wounding with a shotgun is substantially greater than with a rifle. A shot from a high-velocity rifle will lay down a fox, but a light wound in the rear end of a fox will cause it to die a very slow and painful death.

George Stevenson: Order. The argument of shotgun versus rifle is one that could be applied throughout the whole of this debate and the whole of the United Kingdom.

Edward Garnier: Arguments in relation to many clauses in this Bill could be applied throughout the whole of England and Wales. I am concentrating on the need for special care to be taken in the example of applications for licences within Wales. The hon. Member for Caernarfon is right to draw the Committee's attention to the need for this special care. With respect, Mr Stevenson, my hon. Friend's concerns about the use of shotguns are peculiarly relevant to the considerations of the registrars in Wales, because of the special needs of the Welsh farming community in controlling the fox population.
 I will not deal with the differences between rifle shot and shotgun shot; not least because many members of the Committee will already be familiar with them. It is not a new issue. The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals considered it as long ago as 1951 when it contributed to the Scott Henderson report, which I know all members of the Committee have read. The opinion of the RSPCA at that time about the use of shotguns and rifles is clear.

Andrew George: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I seek your guidance. As I understood the case made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon for his amendments—he did it very well—they are simply about the principle of devolution, not about the practicalities of hunting or the topography in certain regions or nations of the UK. The speech that we are hearing does not address the principle of devolution, but is rerunning most of the arguments about various methods of pest control and hunting.
The Chairman: Order. [Interruption.] Let me respond to the point of order, please. The principle of setting up a registrar for Wales is part of the devolution argument and the hon. Member who moved the amendments pointed that out. I am a little concerned that we are beginning to stray to arguments that are not within that ambit. I take the point and hope that Members will be guided accordingly.

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is pointing out that it is important that the registrar should have local knowledge because of the differences in topography between Wales and England. To make that point and support the hon. Member for Caernarfon, it is necessary to describe the differences between Wales and England. That is what my hon.
 and learned Friend was doing, perhaps in a roundabout way.

George Stevenson: I take the point entirely. In my previous interventions, which I have not liked making, I have tried to clarify the situation. However, I am sure that hon. Members understand the way in which the debate should now continue.

Edward Garnier: It is perhaps worth considering the terms of amendment No. 192. The hon. Member for Caernarfon wishes to insert at the beginning of line 32 on page 3 the words ''as regards England''. With respect to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), it is entirely proper to draw attention to the differences between what is or may be applicable in England and what is applicable in Wales, because the hon. Member for Caernarfon is trying to separate the judicial process in Wales from that of England.
 I accept that the appointment of the registrar, be it an individual or a group of individuals, will be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor or his Department. The Lord Chancellor under whom we currently are blessed to have a judicial system is the Lord Chancellor of England and Wales, despite the fact that he is a Scotsman. It seems right when we are considering the usefulness of the registrar system in either England or Wales that the Government should ensure, in producing the legislation, that the most appropriate people are appointed to the task. If the registrar who is appointed to deal with Welsh applications is unfamiliar with the rural community and way of life or the activities that farmers require of their dogs or local packs of hounds, he will fail in his duty and the Government will not have produced a Bill designed to deal with the problem that they perceive to exist. 
 I am as concerned as the hon. Member for Caernarfon—although I do not share his political views about the future of the constitution of the United Kingdom—that there should be justice, fairness and popular acceptance of the registrar system. Unless the Committee bears in mind his arguments, which I hope I have not undermined but reinforced, Welsh farmers, like English farmers, will feel that they have been dealt a bad blow. They will feel with some justification that the Government have ignored and failed to take into account the concerns and local differences between England and Wales and between the various parts of Wales. 
 I hope that the former Secretary of State and First Minister will not simply brush aside those worries as the concerns of a political opponent in Wales, but treat them seriously and invite Ministers to pay particular attention, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, to the concerns of the Welsh rural population and to Wales's economy. If they do that they will have a margin—I accept that it will be only a margin—of acceptance for this otherwise dreadful Bill. If they ignore those concerns—the evidence is that they have done so in the past—they will have further problems, in which case the Minister will not be the only the former Secretary of State for Wales; other Labour Members will be able to hold up their hands and say, ''I, too, am a former Secretary of State for Wales.''

Albert Owen: Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I have first-hand knowledge of Wales and the Welsh countryside. However, my daughter is applying to Jesus college Oxford, which is a great Welsh college that previous Labour leaders have attended.

James Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: No, I have only just started. One reason why I have reservations about part 2 of the Bill is because I am concerned by the registrar's possible inconsistency. I am concerned about not only decisions being taken away from Parliament and given to a registrar, about which many hon. Members are concerned, but the inconsistency of tribunals in their decisions and how they approach the field.
 I support devolution, devolution to Wales and the Welsh language, which, like the hon. Member for Caernarfon, I use regularly in my area. A large percentage of my constituents are Welsh, and I have great concerns about the use of the Welsh language and how Acts of Parliament passed in this place apply to Wales. Sometimes, we do not have to look for Welsh solutions to Welsh problems. Like the Secretary of State for Wales, I support a partnership approach between Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. 
 A Welsh-only registrar appointed by the National Assembly will add to the inconsistencies. There are examples in Scotland, but I have reservations about hunts that cross the English-Welsh border. Which registrar would apply the rulings in those circumstances? We need to consider that and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough did not mention it when he talked about devolution and hunting.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that hunts operating in England should be registered in England?

Albert Owen: Yes, and I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would like Welsh hunts to be registered in the opposite way, but I am sure that that would cause inconsistency.
 Some of DEFRA's responsibilities have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, and there have been calls for animal welfare to be devolved to it. I am not convinced that that would deliver better services to Welsh farmers and the Welsh rural community. I am also unconvinced that the hon. Gentleman really seeks better delivery of the Bill. He and his party consistently want more powers for the National Assembly for Wales. Indeed, he wants a Parliament for Wales and in many ways wants to be separate from this institution. That is what lies behind the amendments rather than improving the delivery of services and the practical application of the Bill. 
 As I said, I strongly support the Welsh language. The 1993 Act, which was enacted under the previous Tory Administration, may contain the provisions to make the Bill work. I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has experience of this place and, in 
 his previous role, the National Assembly for Wales, to ensure that assurances about the Welsh language are upheld when the Bill is implemented. When people claim for compensation, they should be able to do so in the Welsh language and should receive forms in Welsh. 
 The Committee should stick to the registrar approach. The amendments would add a burden to the administration of the law in Wales and would not help Welsh farmers.

Lembit Öpik: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he supports the principle of devolving the decision making on hunting with dogs to the Assembly?

Albert Owen: I thought that I was making my position clear. I do not believe that devolution on hunting with dogs is necessary so I obviously do not support it.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman support the principle?

Albert Owen: For reasons that I shall give in a moment, I do not believe in the principle.
 I was glad to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman because, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Caernarfon, certain of DEFRA's responsibilities have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, but it has not improved the situation. It would be easy for me to score cheap points because a Liberal Minister is in charge of rural affairs in the Assembly, but there has been a huge problem with the administration of sheep annual premiums to farmers. There has been a huge delay in Wales, which is causing suffering and hardship to Welsh farmers, because we have devolved for the sake of it. We have devolved the matter because we felt that it would be better for Welsh farmers. The English payments are on time, on which I congratulate DEFRA, but the Assembly has not managed to do that.

Hywel Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. Mysteriously, I have been reminded of a vote, which was held in the National Assembly for Wales about a year and a half ago, on the devolution of decision making on hunting to Wales. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the result was 28 in favour and 27 against. A large number of Labour Members were among those in favour.

George Stevenson: Order. This is not the point for a speech.

Albert Owen: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I know that he does not like this situation, but we, as Members of Parliament, are elected by Welsh constituents to represent them in this Parliament. This Parliament is making the decision and it is preferable that we should make those decisions with Welsh interests in our minds, which is exactly what we are doing. We should not confuse the issue by having an additional registrar to implement the Bill.
 Before I finish, I remind the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that he said that two Welsh 
 constituencies were represented on the Opposition Benches, but four Welsh constituencies are represented on the Government Benches. As a Member for a rural constituency, I speak long and hard to people. Not one of the pro or anti-hunters has mentioned the registrar, who is not an issue in Wales. My constituents want a clear decision on hunting, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to give a clear indication that the 1993 Act will be upheld in the Bill to protect the Welsh language. We do not need to go down the road of more powers for more powers' sake.

Lembit Öpik: The more that the hon. Gentleman says, the more surprised I become. There is a considerable split in the Labour party on whether to devolve the issue to Wales.
 The hon. Member for Caernarfon—[Interruption.] I am talking about devolution. If I understand the amendments correctly, they are about the Welsh Assembly, on which there is no split in the Liberal Democrat party. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn has chosen to reject the decision of the Welsh Assembly, which would clearly support the principle behind the amendments. In other words, we have heard clear opposition to what the Assembly wanted.

Albert Owen: In principle.

Lembit Öpik: Indeed. For the sake of clarification, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives will confirm that there is no split on the amendments between myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues—[Interruption.] I can see the strong unity within the Liberal Democrats. It causes no small amount of consternation in the hopelessly riven ranks of the Labour party, whose members simply shout me down when I make a simple point about devolution.
 I am sure that the hon. Member for Caernarfon will correct me if I have misunderstood what he is seeking to do, but as I understand it the amendments are not reopening the question of hunting with dogs. They are simply designed to honour what the Welsh Assembly has asked us to do in Westminster. By a small majority, but a majority nevertheless, Welsh Assembly Members have asked us to give them the authority to make a decision on the matter. I assume the Minister is not so keen on the amendments. If he speaks on the issue, I will be interested to hear why it is so difficult for us to respect the will of the Welsh Assembly.

Albert Owen: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what the view of the National Assembly for Wales was on the issue? He talks of a split on the matter in the Labour party. There is no split as far as I am aware. We have discussed the issue and no Members of the Assembly have approached us to say that they want extra powers. He says that the Liberal Democrats in Wales are not split. Only two Liberal Democrats represent Welsh constituencies, and there are no Conservatives. There are hardly going to be any Conservative splits in the Welsh parliamentary party.

Lembit Öpik: I think, perhaps, we are straying too far—

Peter Bradley: Answer the question.

Lembit Öpik: I will answer as briefly as I can because I want to talk about the amendment. The whole purpose of being here is not to score cheap political points. There are those who may try. The salient issue, which is relevant to the amendments, is the difference between the Liberal Democrat view of respecting the wishes of the Assembly when it comes to devolution, and the view of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn who, by implication at least, seems to think that despite the fact that elements of the Labour party in the Welsh Assembly would like the amendments to be agreed, the Labour party in Westminster should take a different view.

Hywel Williams: To elaborate briefly, the vote that I referred to in an earlier intervention related to the previous Bill. That was not very long ago and Labour Assembly Members were then in favour.

Lembit Öpik: It seems logical that if the Assembly wanted to legislate on the matter in the past, it probably would still want to.

Albert Owen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but I wish he would help me by answering my question. We are discussing this Bill. There has been dialogue between Welsh Assembly Members from the Labour group and ourselves and there is no split on the matter. They have not discussed this Bill in the National Assembly, so they have not formed an opinion on it. Will he retract his earlier statement, or does he have information that we do not?

George Stevenson: This group of amendments concerns the legislation of this House. Can we return to the amendments and the procedures of this House?

Lembit Öpik: I apologise, Mr. Stevenson. To a certain extent, I think that I provoked the diversion, and it is with some humility that I return to the body of the amendments, not least because hon. Members have made their views clear, and there is not much to add.

Peter Luff: Internal Labour party politics is rightly not a matter for the Committee. However, it is a matter of simple, natural justice for the Welsh people that amendment No. 229, which states that a tribunal sitting in Wales would deliberate on Welsh cases, should be adopted. It is not a matter of party politics; it is natural justice.

Lembit Öpik: I note with somewhat wry amusement that two members of the Conservative party have spoken in favour of devolution and at least one member of the Labour party seems to oppose it on this issue. The world is a strange place.
 We have discussed the merits of devolution to Wales on this matter and the record shows fairly clearly the arguments in favour of that. Nevertheless, I will briefly explain why I am sympathetic to the amendments and particularly to amendments Nos. 194, 195, 229, 191 and 201. In each case, they are fairly well thought out and internally consistent. They would give the Welsh Assembly the power to legislate on a matter that is of great importance, given the geography of the majority of Wales. 
 As we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, Burns had a lot to say about hill packs and the proportion of foxes killed as a result of hunting with dogs in areas such as Montgomeryshire and mid-Wales in general. Burns went so far as to say that he acknowledged that it was the primary method of fox control in places such as Montgomeryshire. There are many reasons for that phenomenon. We have already heard the topographical argument, which is probably the primary one. 
 Hunts such as the David Davies pack, which operates from Llandinam in Montgomeryshire, operate almost exclusively on the assumption that they are controlling pests. The way in which that hunt works is markedly different from hunts in other places, which may have a significant recreational element to their activities. The David Davies pack is phoned when there is a problem fox and will turn up and find it by tracking its scent from the field where it has been killing lambs. That is just one example. We do not need to go into too much detail because I am sure that hon. Members who have been involved in the debate for some time will be aware of the fact that hill packs have to some extent been given a special status, even by those who have expressed a preference for banning hunting with dogs in other circumstances.

Rob Marris: There are 14 amendments and one new clause in the group. Can the hon. Gentleman explain, amendment by amendment, how the amendments add to the existing structure of the administration of justice in England and Wales, where we have such things as circuits for specific geographic areas and where the tribunal system is decentralised anyway, as in the examples of social security appeal tribunals and employment tribunals? How do the amendments take that system further or make it different?

Lembit Öpik: I support the amendments because if the Bill became law and a large proportion of hunting with dogs in England were banned, there would be a strong case for having an exemption or giving the Welsh Assembly the opportunity to decide separately about Wales. I regard the amendments as an attempt to be defensive and to protect what is primarily a pest control activity in large parts of Wales. I hope that I am answering the question; if I am not, the hon. Gentleman is free to intervene again.
 The amendments drive the administration of justice forward by devolving local decision making on local matters to people in Wales. There is a markedly different viewpoint in Wales compared with other parts of the United Kingdom and therefore, whatever we decide for England, it is better to let the Welsh Assembly decide on behalf of the Welsh people, bearing in mind that there are other areas of policy making, such as student funding, where the Welsh Assembly seeks different settlements from those that exist in England. I see the amendments as driving devolution forward. I hope that I have not misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's question.

Peter Luff: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made a characteristically
 thoughtful point. We do not know where the tribunal will sit and it could be a long time before it does so. Many of the hunts of which my right hon. and hon. Friends are speaking are relatively impoverished and ensuring that the tribunal sits in areas close to those hunts is a matter of natural justice and would enhance justice.

Lembit Öpik: Amendment No. 229 would do exactly that and I shall speak to it now, although it is not the order in which I intended to speak to the amendments. The amendment is entirely reasonable in its stipulation within the legislation. Wherever people stand on hunting with dogs, surely the Bill would be improved if it stated that hunts in Wales or those who seek licences for hunting in Wales do not have to leave Wales to achieve that.

Alun Michael: I would like to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he in favour of devolving the tribunals on hunting to the regions of England?

Lembit Öpik: I have not really thought about that—[Interruption.] The Minister asked me a fair question and I shall give him an honest answer. I have not thought about whether they should be devolved to the regions of England, but we do not have a devolved settlement for legislative authority in the English regions. If England had the sort of devolution that Wales has, I would be inclined to say yes. However, I am shooting from the hip, because the matter does not arise, given that we have not had such a settlement for the English regions, notwithstanding the fact that it is Liberal Democrat policy to achieve that.

Peter Luff: The Minister has provoked me and I may have to make a speech, although I did not intend to. I remind my hon. Friend that Wales is a country, Scotland is a country and England is a country. There is a certain logic about that. The regions of England do not exist.

Lembit Öpik: I see that the Minister is mildly entertained by our responses. It is important to recognise that it is not a question of making decisions randomly in local areas. At the three-day hearing, I was sceptical about the benefit of doing that. If I thought the Bill would be totally fair and even-handed, I am not sure that I would be quite as persuaded about the practical benefit of devolving the decision to Wales either. However, given that there is a small majority in favour of that in the Welsh Assembly and, more to the point, that it is important to protect the opportunity for people in Wales to achieve their pest control objectives by hunting using dogs, there is collective pressure to achieve that end.
 We are returning to an area where I did not want to go. I am sure you agree, Mr. Stevenson, that it is better to go through the amendments.

George Stevenson: Order. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit Öpik: I am always happy to give way but I hope that hon. Members will not continue to question me on devolution. I shall try to answer questions as honestly as I can and I hope that hon. Members will at
 least respect my concerns and the difference between the English regions, which do not exist as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, and the Welsh Assembly, which does exist.

Rob Marris: On amendment No. 229, would hunts in the hon. Gentleman's constituency prefer to attend a tribunal hearing in Cardiff or Shrewsbury, as would be the case with an employment tribunal?

Lembit Öpik: I have not asked them. When I have finished speaking, perhaps I shall call David Jones and ask him. That is not the issue. If amendment No. 229 were accepted, they could sit anywhere in Wales. It would not have to be in Cardiff. Tribunals serve people—people do not serve tribunals—and presumably the tribunal would be willing to make the effort to go to the locality and make it easier for those applying for licences to do so.
 The hon. Member for Caernarfon is the architect of the amendment, so he may intervene if he wishes. I envisage a tribunal advertising for a period of days that it will visit a particular area and perhaps make appointments to cover as many applications as possible. It might then sit in Newtown in mid-Wales, which would be a shorter journey for David Jones than going to Cardiff.

James Gray: The same principle applies in England. By my understanding of the Bill, the tribunal and registrar will be able to sit wherever they choose. They might find it convenient to sit in the west of England on one occasion and the east of England on another. That seems sensible.

Lembit Öpik: That is quite a helpful clarification. The Minister might want to give his perspective, for the record, on how the tribunals will work. We know that the records of our debates are often used as guides to operational practice once Bills are enacted. We can discuss that regardless of whether the Minister is sympathetic to the amendments.

Peter Bradley: I have been listening with rapt attention, although I think that the hon. Gentleman's speech would have been better made from a psychologist's couch than in Committee. Can he point us to any clause in the Bill that prohibits the tribunal from sitting in any part of Wales? If he cannot, will he conclude his comments and let us make further progress?

Lembit Öpik: Hon. Members know that I, like the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, have tried to take a genuine and positive approach to these matters. It is a little disappointing when we get cheap personal shots in a debate that is taking place at a fairly high level. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. Hon. Members will know that I am very concerned about cheap personal shots. We do not want any of that and it would not be allowed. If I may say so, however, I thought that the question was pertinent.

Lembit Öpik: I shall answer the significant part of the question. The Bill does not exclude the tribunal from sitting in Wales, but that is not the point. If we agreed amendment No. 229, individuals applying in Wales would be reassured that they could necessarily
 expect the tribunal to sit in Wales when deliberating on Welsh cases. There would be no inconsistency or contradiction in accepting that amendment, whether or not hon. Members support the concept of devolution to the Welsh Assembly, but there would be a benefit. It would be respectful to the public. Let us remember that we are passing the legislation as servants of the people. The more we can tailor it to the people whom we are trying to serve, the better.

Peter Luff: The situation is actually worse than that. There is no obligation on magistrates courts to sit in remote rural England and Wales, so they do not. Those services are being more and more centralised. Bureaucracies tend to serve their own interests not those of the people whom they are supposed to serve. That is why the amendments are so important.

Lembit Öpik: As my hon. Friend points out, the precedent makes people in rural areas nervous. It makes people such as David Jones believe that if we do not amend the Bill to say that the tribunal will deliberate in Wales—especially if hon. Members are not keen on the concept of devolution to Wales—it is more reasonable to assume that they will have to make the journey to it rather than that the public servants in the tribunal, paid for through tax, will make the journey to them.

Hywel Williams: Given the geography of Wales, it would be entirely reasonable for tribunals to sit locally. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the long and miserable history in our country of holding meetings far from Wales—the Labour-controlled Welsh Local Government Association, for example, often used to meet in London, to the marked inconvenience of local authority members in my area—[Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. I fear that another speech is developing. I think that the Committee has got the point.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Caernarfon has made his point and we have more or less exhausted the debate on amendment No. 229. I emphasise that hon. Members do not have to agree with the concept of devolution to agree with the amendment and with the idea that the tribunal should sit in Wales when considering Welsh cases.
 Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 go to the core of the principle of devolution. I think that they are self-explanatory in seeking to create a separate hunting tribunal for Wales. We have already covered the arguments for that. 
 Amendment No. 191 is interesting, assuming that hon. Members accept the principle of devolution, because it gives the Welsh Assembly the authority to vary the class of exemptions for hunting. That is significant, because it could lead to a different outcome to that in England. I do not see that as a problem. Hon. Members who oppose amendment No. 191 must explain why. Would it be reasonable for Members at Westminster to overrule a decision by Assembly Members to have a different set of exemptions for Wales? That would go against the spirit of devolution. Once again, one does not have to support or oppose hunting to support amendment No. 191. There is no 
 point in having a long debate about the merits or demerits of a ban. 
 If hon. Members are serious about the principle of devolution, they should be sympathetic to amendment No. 191 and accept that the elected representatives of the Welsh Assembly have the right to make the decision. There is a case for devolving the decision to the Welsh Assembly, which, unlike the English regions, does exist. 
 Furthermore, we have a precedent in that the decision was a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. Hon. Members who oppose the amendments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon must explain why they feel that Wales should not have the same authority on such matters as Scotland. More importantly, they must explain why they find that impossible to accept, despite the fact that there may be a different view in Wales. Why should people in Wales be beholden to a decision made in Westminster on their behalf, without the consent of the Assembly, by MPs, many of whom, sadly, are not even representatives of Welsh constituencies?

Hugo Swire: I am not surprised that the Parliamentary Private Secretary wishes to hurry us through the group of amendments, because they expose, yet again, fundamental flaws in the drafting of the Bill. In an earlier sitting, when we raised the subject of devolution and devolved decision making on hunting with dogs, the Minister was quick to point out that Opposition Members did not understand devolution. That was during a discussion on whether the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who is not in the Committee at present, should play a part in the deliberations. The decision on hunting with dogs was devolved to Scotland, and we can see the mess that the Scottish Parliament is in because of Lord Watson's Bill. I suspect that that is why the Minister is not keen to refer to what is happening in Scotland.
 The Minister seems to prefer pick-and-choose devolution. It is all right to devolve the issue to Scotland but not, seemingly, to Wales. I agree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that the Minister owes the Committee an explanation as to why he does not trust the opinions of the Welsh people. They are known for expressing their opinions forcibly, as he knows to his cost. The key to the problem may be that he knows what the Welsh people think about some of his past decisions, and he is nervous that they may have similar feelings about this issue.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: I shall continue. I do not wish to detain the Committee too long, because the point has been made.
 By way of counter-challenging those who believe that the amendments are perfectly acceptable, the Minister asked whether we thought that the decisions should be devolved to the regions. No, we do not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, we do not believe that England should become a 
 series of regions. If we cede to the Minister that such decisions should be made by the regions, we cede that point as well. 
 However, to continue that line of thought, if the Minister believes that the decisions should be devolved to what he calls the English regions, why does he not go for even greater local decision making? The inarguable point then would be that local landowners should be allowed to decide who should and should not use their land. I suggest that that would shoot a large hole through the Bill and it would have to be scrapped. 
 On a serious point, Wales is different in the same way that Scotland is different. We have heard about the topography of Wales, but what is applicable to some areas of Wales would have absolutely no relationship to what might be applicable to the home counties, Leicestershire or even Devon. 
 The key point is that if the Minister has the courage of his convictions, he should be prepared to accept the group of amendments. They would increase local accountability, which is to be welcomed—it would have been welcomed in the maintenance of magistrates courts throughout the country. In Devon, for example, magistrates courts have been closed and decision making concentrated in Exeter. That was fundamentally a mistake, as would be passing the Bill without allowing the people of Wales to have some say.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugo Swire: I am about to conclude my remarks.
 The people of Wales will not have a say if the Government do not support the amendments.

Peter Luff: I was not intending to speak in this debate, but I have made the mistake of listening to it and now realise that the amendments are of considerable importance. The Minister must understand that devolution should be consistent. The rotten deal that the Welsh people got, compared with the deal that the Scottish people got, was wrong—there should have been consistency of devolution. I was an opponent of devolution, but I may now change my mind. I shall have to think about it.
 There should be consistency. The amendments seek to make the process more consistent.

Albert Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This point relates to something that the hon. Member for East Devon said. Does the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire accept that Welsh people are represented in this Parliament by Welsh MPs and that the issue is an England-Wales issue? Therefore, is it consistent to argue that Scottish Members should not be allowed to participate in the debate because it is not a devolved matter?

Peter Luff: I do not see that that is at all fatal to the argument that I am about to advance. For example, the Countryside Commission, when it existed, had a separate organisation in Wales, which reported to the UK Parliament. The amendments are not at all inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps I did not understand his point.

Hugo Swire: If I may answer the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, there is a fundamental difference. I tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, stating that no Scottish MPs should play a part in the deliberations pertaining to hunting with dogs in England and Wales for a very simple reason: it is a devolved matter. The Scottish Parliament has pronounced on it, so they have nothing to do with the debate in Westminster.

George Stevenson: Order. I suspect that we have adequately rehearsed the issue of devolution and how the amendments affect it.

Peter Luff: Absolutely. Let me just say that I welcome the presence of Welsh Members in the Committee—they have every right to be here. The matter is very much one for them and I am delighted that they are here. They are making a good contribution, but I wish that they would speak up more effectively for the interests of the Welsh people by supporting the amendments.
 During an intervention earlier in the debate, the Minister rather teasingly paid tribute to the Labour party in Wales for advancing the Welsh language in his country. I wish to pay tribute to Lord Roberts of Conwy, a Minister in the then Welsh Office from 1979 to 1994, who really set the ball rolling. He made me understand the importance of the Welsh language and he is one of the reasons that I am converted to the amendments. 
 I think that the Minister is saying, half jokingly—perhaps seriously—that the amendment should say ''or Shrewsbury''. He has a point. The topography and geography of Wales are problematic. Travelling from north to south is not easy. When I was a consultant for the then Countryside Commission, I organised consultations, interestingly, in the uplands of England and Wales. Choosing venues in Wales that Welsh people could get to to take part in the consultations was difficult. However, we did so and had meetings in Wales that satisfied the Welsh people. That exercise was similar to the one in which we are now engaged. We know that foxhunting is very important in the uplands of Wales. It would be possible to meet the Minister's sedentary objection if he were to accept amendment No. 229. 
 In conclusion—this is a short speech—I wish to ask a simple question: how big is the issue in Wales? That should steer the Committee in reaching its decisions. That is very much a Middle Way Group point. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said that there were 49 registered packs in Wales. My information is that, at the end of the foot and mouth epidemic, DEFRA Ministers authorised some 100 hunts in Wales to continue hunting, which suggests that there are at least as many unregistered packs there. We might be looking at a total hunting population of about 100 hunts. If that is the case, it adds even more force to the amendments. Those 100 packs—especially the unregistered ones, which I suspect are likely to have less money at their disposal—would find it valuable to have those hearings held near to where they hunt. 
 Nothing in the Bill obliges the registrar to hold hearings or take evidence near to where hunts operate. There is a case for saying that there should be, because of what I said about magistrates courts, but I do not want to overcomplicate the Bill and it is too late now to table new amendments for the Committee. Perhaps we can return to that matter on Report. The natural justice of the amendments is strong and I should like the Minister to tell me whether my figure of about 100 hunts in Wales is correct. 
 There is a glimpse of a thought in my mind that some Labour Members think that the amendments might make it easier for hunting to survive in Wales, because Welsh people who knew what they were talking about and understood the importance of hunting in the Welsh economy might be more likely to grant licences. I am worried that their real motive might be to attempt again to stiffen up the Bill, keep it tough and make it a real ban rather than allow it to reflect the golden thread of the principles that the Minister has set out so often.

Andrew George: I, too, wish to make a brief contribution. The issue being debated is one of devolution, not hunting. That is the principle underlying the amendments. For good constitutional and cultural reasons, Wales has had powers devolved to it. The hon. Member for Caernarfon rightly pointed to the rich cultural heritage of Wales, which is an important bedrock and justification for the different constitutional status that applies in Wales.
 As a fellow Celt, I must say, ''Mea clapya Kernewek, pup bolunjeth da''. The hon. Gentleman may or may not know that that means, ''I will say it in Cornish, I offer him all good wishes'' with his amendment. Although a previous Government passed the Welsh Language Act 1993, I am grateful to this Government, who recently recognised the Cornish language for the purposes of the European charter for regional or minority languages. 
 Devolution is about the celebration of diversity. We want not to cut places off, but to bring them into that celebration, which fundamentally justifies devolution. Where there is a different cultural or, as in the case of Wales, constitutional environment, it is important to reflect that in the way in which legislation is introduced in areas where it is appropriate to take decisions at a more local—or, as in the case of Wales, national—level. 
 Whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn or others now share the view or not, Government Ministers have consistently repeated that devolution is a process, not a single event. As I understand it, the devolution legislation that applies to Wales is not something that is held in aspic for all time and will never change. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government will keep their mind open to the possibility of further appropriate devolution as time goes on. That is the important point.

Alun Michael: We could get into a very theoretical discussion, but I want to point out briefly that the Government have given a number of new powers to the National Assembly for Wales since it was established. That does not undermine the settlement
 that was reached by this Parliament; it means that where it makes sense, issues can be devolved for decision making and administration can be run by the Assembly. It is a question of whether that makes sense.

George Stevenson: Order. I am sure that hon. Members do not want to open up a debate on what the Government may do at some time in the future. We need to concentrate on the amendments.

Andrew George: Absolutely, Mr. Stevenson. I make my remarks in the context of the Bill. It is important to put them in the context of the principle of devolution, which is very much what is at stake.
 The Minister says, ''if it makes sense.'' Well, it made sense in Scotland. Given that the Government have accepted that there is an intention to devolve wherever appropriate, the test needs to be the other way round. The Minister needs to justify why he will not accede to the request for such powers. Why on earth do the Government say that this a perfectly reasonably request for the devolution of powers and then act as they do? If there is a good reason for not acceding to the request, the Minister will no doubt tell us and explain why there might be a registrar based in England making decisions on what will be happening in Wales. I look forward to the Minister's response. 
 The amendments contain good sense. They have my strong support and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) and for Montgomeryshire. I am pleased that the Conservatives who have spoken have either been in favour in theory or indicated that they too will support the amendments. I am encouraged by their late conversion to the devolution cause. Perhaps we will form alliances with the Conservatives on that important principle in forthcoming debates. The Liberal Democrats have considered the issue important for some time.

Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: I will gladly give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make the same sort of gratuitous and offensive remarks that he made earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire.

Peter Bradley: I apologise to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire if he took offence. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that what he was saying was more like a stream of consciousness than a speech. No offence was intended.
 I want to clarify one point. Both the hon. Member for St. Ives, in his reference to culture, and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire have suggested that the amendments would allow the Welsh tribunal to exercise a different type of discretion from that exercised by an English tribunal. It does not strike me that that is the intention or the effect of the amendments. They may ensure that tribunals sit in Wales and perhaps even discourse in Welsh, but they will be bound by the same provisions and will not be 
 able to take different issues into account when making decisions.

Andrew George: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire accepts that there was an apology in that intervention.
 On devolution and the appropriateness of devolving matter to Wales, the hon. Gentleman has not really dealt with why it was appropriate to devolve such issues to Scotland. What is so different? There was a different constitutional settlement for Scotland. However, we seem to be saying that people in Scotland are somehow culturally or topographically different and that that entitles them to make decisions that the people of Wales cannot.

Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that there might be some case for arguing that this would be more difficult if it were a Home Office issue? However, the Government have decided that this is a DEFRA issue. There has already been a precedent of devolving matters to the Assembly from the DEFRA decision-making portfolio, so there does not seem to be any argument in principle against doing so on this matter.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend helps me to make the point that I was due to make. The Government have decided that this is an agricultural and environmental matter to be dealt with by DEFRA. Such matters are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales.

Hywel Williams: I referred earlier to the Minister's statement on 16 December that the registrar will be required to interpret the legislation. The utility of having a Welsh registrar, and system of tribunals, is that the registrar's understanding of the evidence will be enhanced compared with the understanding of a remote body. That is the point. As the Minister said, it is a matter not of interpreting legislation but of real knowledge.

Andrew George: It may well be that if the Bill were enacted, on every occasion that a parallel registrar and a parallel tribunal considered the same applications and appeals they might come to exactly the same conclusions, whether they covered England and Wales—as the Minister proposes—or there were two separate bodies. That is not the point. A place that has been given appropriate devolved powers should be given further devolved powers. There is no good reason not to add that further tier of devolution to the responsibilities of the National Assembly for Wales.

Peter Luff: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the combined effect of the amendments is likely to be that hearings on Welsh licences and registration would be carried out on a basis of a greater understanding of the Welsh situation, which can only be a good thing?

Andrew George: I agree that a greater knowledge of the topographical, geographical and cultural circumstances in which those decisions are to be made can only enhance the process, but I am sticking to the principle of devolution. I am not arguing that a registrar and tribunal system for England and Wales would be incapable of understanding local circumstances. If the Minister argued that in his
 response, I would remind him that I am not making that point.
 As night follows day, it is clear that a registrar and tribunal system for Wales will have a better understanding of local circumstances as a matter of course. I do not wish to detain the Committee. The hon. Member for Caernarfon has tabled some important amendments on devolution and he has my strong support.

James Gray: We are all looking forward to finding out what kind of a fist the Minister will make of arguing against the amendments in this group. Therefore, I will not delay that precious moment. Matters of devolution were perhaps not the most glittering moments in the Minister's most glittering career. It is a huge and superb career, but dealing with those matters was not the high point. It will be interesting to see how he argues against the limited amount of administrative devolution to the people of Wales offered in the amendments.
 I shall not delay the Committee, particularly because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, my hon. Friends the Members for East Devon and for Mid-Worcestershire and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire have made a very good fist indeed of advancing the arguments in favour of the amendments. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon for tabling them. We shall happily support them. 
 There is a fundamental difference between the devolutionary settlements for Scotland and for Wales. I welcome the fact that Welsh MPs are sitting on the Committee and having their say on Welsh matters. During the discussion this morning, no one has suggested that hunting should be a devolved matter. No one suggested that the Welsh Assembly should decide whether hunting should be banned. That decision is rightly and properly for this Parliament. Scotland is different, which is why we have made points regarding the hon. Member for Dumfries on several occasions. The devolutionary settlements are different and the amendments recognise that difference. 
 We are not saying that the National Assembly for Wales should necessarily decide the issue, but it should appoint the registrar and the tribunal, which should be required to sit in Wales. That is an eminently sensible argument for these two strong reasons.

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I am trying to be brief. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am arguing—oh, he insists.

Albert Owen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that the amendments would not give the National Assembly for Wales any additional powers to deal with hunting in Wales. Has he read amendment No. 191, which states:
''As regards Wales the National Assembly for Wales may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting''?
 If that is not giving powers to the National Assembly for Wales, I do not know what is.

James Gray: I knew that I should not have given way because we have spent an hour and a half on the matter.
 It is important that the tribunal and the registrar should be different to those appointed in England because the topography and the nature of hunting in Wales are different from those in England. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has often said that upland hunting is a different thing and has argued that it should be allowed to continue. Indeed, one of his amendments, which we are due to consider later, suggests that that should be the case. He makes the case that there is an important difference between upland and lowland hunting, although I am not sure whether I accept it. If that is the case, it would be right for Wales to have a different registrar and a different tribunal. 
 To answer the question that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), asked earlier, it is of course implicit that the tribunal and the registrar in Wales might reach different conclusions from the registrar and the tribunal in England. The Bill accepts that the registrar and the tribunal could come to different conclusions in different parts of England because they would have different evidence and different reasons. The intervention implied that the conclusions and outcome of all the considerations of the registrar and the tribunal should be identical in every place.

Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: No, I will not.

Peter Bradley: On a point of order, I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have taken an intervention to clarify what I said and prevent him from reading a misrepresentation into the record.

George Stevenson: That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is up to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to give way, if he so wishes. If he does not want to give way, it is entirely up to him.

James Gray: We do not want to prolong the debate, which is why I have been reluctant to take too many interventions. Some Government Members would like to delay the debate and argue every point ad nauseum. We want to crack on and listen to what the Minister has to say.
 An important reason for having a separate registrar and tribunal in Wales is that the topography and type of hunting in Wales is different from that in England. Although the registrar and the tribunal in England may sit wherever they wish—it is possible that they would sit in, for example, Shrewsbury from time to time—none the less it seems reasonable that Welsh hunts, many of which are not particularly well off, should not have to make a journey to London to justify their cases, which might take several days. It is therefore sensible that the registrar and the tribunal should be required to sit within the borders of the Principality. 
 We support the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Caernarfon and congratulate him on them. We look forward to hearing how the Minister can possibly justify arguing against them.

Alun Michael: Hae'r gwr anthydeddus ddim yn deallt datganoli. Yn wir, mae pob un sydd wedi siarad o'r ochr arall o'r pwyllgor wedi dangos fod nhw ddim yn deallt datganoli.

George Stevenson: Order. I am certain that that was a pleasant, congratulatory statement.

Alun Michael: Opposition Members who have spoken in this debate simply do not understand devolution, particularly the hon. Member for Caernarfon, from whom we had the usual muddled thinking of the nationalists.
 I strongly support powers and responsibilities being given to the National Assembly for Wales when appropriate. Indeed, since the Bill to establish the Welsh Assembly went through the House, a variety of further legislation has given further functions and responsibilities to the Assembly. The establishment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales was one of the major steps forward in dealing with the needs of children in Wales and was entirely appropriate and sensible. 
 The hon. Member for Caernarfon is wrong in his judgment of the Assembly. It is proving to be a success, but if it is not a resounding success that is because it is being held back by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh National party. The point of devolution is that the Assembly deals with issues when it is sensible for it to deal with them in Wales, and an England and Wales approach is adopted when that makes sense, as it does with hunting. 
 When preparing the legislation I listened to opinions in Wales. When I have written to Members of Parliament, albeit including all the Welsh Members of Parliament, I have written at the same time to each Member of the National Assembly for Wales and some of them replied. The Committee may like to note that in response to my letter of 10 April 2002 I received 12 letters. Three were basically in favour of hunting, eight were against and one was neutral. In response to my letter of 31 May, which included detailed questions that would have provided an opportunity for particular circumstances in Wales to be mentioned by Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies, I had five responses. Two were neutral, two were in favour of hunting and one was against. Opposition Members may be interested to note that the April letter stimulated one Liberal Democrat reply and two Conservative replies out of the 12. The May letter elicited no response from the Liberal Democrats and only one from a Conservative Member. 
 The Welsh Assembly established a short inquiry by its Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and its conclusions were sent to me when the Committee had completed its deliberations. That has been taken into account. It was interesting that its report drew on its consultation to identify some of the key features of hunting in Wales so that they could be taken into account in shaping the legislation. The Committee also noted the information published in the report of the Burns inquiry, which examined the circumstances in Wales. The National Assembly for 
 Wales has published nothing further on hunting since its Committee report in June 2002. 
 I have taken account of views from Assembly Members, as Lord Burns did in his report. Lord Burns referred specifically to the difficulties of lamping in the upland terrain that is typical of much of Wales, as he recognised in his report. That underlines the value of the case-by-case approach proposed in the Bill, under which the same test will be applied to a variety of different circumstances. 
 It is surprising that some Opposition Members have suddenly developed an interest in devolution. There are differences between each region of England also. Compare Leicestershire with Cumbria, for example. It seems that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, who speaks for the Conservative party, is extremely concerned that a Welsh applicant would have to travel to London to be heard. He does not seem to care if an applicant from Cumbria must travel to London to be heard. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going to withdraw his earlier, rather curious comments.

James Gray: What a disgraceful suggestion, Mr. Stevenson. During an intervention on, I believe, a Liberal Democrat Member I made it clear that one of the good parts of the Bill is that the tribunal and the registrar will have the opportunity to move around England and will, I hope, visit places around the country. The point about the amendments is that they would require the tribunal and the registrar to sit in Wales; they do not merely suggest that they may do so.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill as it stands would require applicants in Wales to travel to London to be heard, which is complete nonsense. Of course they can be heard in Wales. The Bill and the tribunal system allow that. We have an extended system of tribunals on various topics that operate perfectly well in Wales. Employment tribunals are not devolved. Of course, there are particular circumstances in Wales, such as linguistic aspects, and employment tribunals deal with those satisfactorily without being devolved.

Peter Luff: Is the Minister saying, by implication, that he will expect the registrar to go roughly to the geographical areas where hunts take place and have the hearings there? If so, it is a welcome implication and if he can put that on the record now, it will carry great weight with the registrar when his office is established.

Alun Michael: We expect the tribunals to sit where it makes sense for them to sit, to meet the convenience of applicants and those making representation. That is what tribunals do. I am glad to be able to give the hon. Gentleman that ''Janet and John'' introduction to the way in which tribunals operate.
 Opposition Members do not seem to understand that devolution already exists in England in various forms. Much of the devolution settlement in the English regions was established by the Conservative party. It does not seem to realise what powerful instruments it established in the Government offices for the regions. This debate is not about the principle of devolution but about sensible systems that will 
 allow proper and fair decisions to be reached under the Bill. 
 The hon. Member for Caernarfon should have realised that he was in trouble when he saw the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex looking up at him adoringly and saying, ''Hear, hear!'' He should have realised that he was in even more trouble when the hon. and learned Member for Harborough spoke in his support, albeit from a position of total ignorance. He should have reached a state of panic when the hon. Member for East Devon rose in his support. However, we are used in Wales to an unholy alliance of Conservatives and nationalists at a national level and in local government. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned devolving decisions—a curious viewpoint from a Member on the Conservative Front Bench. It is totally illogical for him to support that view for Wales but not for England. His logic does not carry through unless he looks at differences between different parts of England. He is happy for Cumbrian cases to be heard in Wiltshire, or vice versa, but for some peculiar reason he is concerned about the way in which Welsh cases will be dealt with. 
 The problem is that the hon. Gentleman does not understand rural England. Last Wednesday, in the course of my day job, I had the pleasure of meeting members of the rural affairs forum for the west midlands. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire does not seem to know that the west midlands exists. On Friday, I spent time—

George Stevenson: Order. A perambulation around the regions of England, particularly mentioning the region in which my constituency resides, is all well and good, but I am a little perplexed as to what it has to do with the amendment in front of us, which seeks to set up a registrar in Wales.

Alun Michael: I was going to make a comparison with the north-west. On Friday, we met up in the Lake district, Cumbria, where many conditions are directly comparable to those in Wales. We spoke there about many more important issues, such as education and the way in which young people have taken part in the regional rural affairs forum in the north-west. It was a very constructive and positive session. It is a pity that Opposition Members do not seem to know that such things are happening around the country, giving people who live in rural communities the opportunity to represent their views directly to the Government.

Edward Garnier: I do not want to take the Minister out of order, but clause 11(3) says:
''The Secretary of State may make a payment by way of grant (which may be subject to conditions) to a prescribed animal welfare body.''
 Does he intend that that unnamed body could use the grant to represent itself in front of the registrar, or to pay for travel expenses if it had to go, for example, to north Wales, south Wales or Cumbria?

George Stevenson: Order. That is clearly beyond the scope of the amendments.

Alun Michael: I will not be tempted, Mr. Stevenson. I gave considerable thought to the arrangements for Wales before bringing the Bill before the House. As a passionate advocate of devolution over many years, I would have proposed separate arrangements if they made any sense; they do not, so I have not done so. We anticipate that a number of applications for registration under the Bill will come from Wales, but we do not expect so many cases that it would make sense to decentralise the registrar's work or have a separate registrar. It would be simpler to manage the registration process and the hearings as we do in matters such as employment and for the hearings to take place in different parts of Wales and England, as appropriate.
 The Bill proposes one national hunting tribunal for England and Wales that will be able to sit anywhere in those countries, as I made clear on Second Reading. It needs to be a national tribunal so that it can apply the same clear standards to the diverse circumstances that exist in England and Wales. The same considerations that can be used as an argument for a national tribunal can also be used as an argument for having one registrar. 
 The geography and physical characteristics of Wales are markedly different from some parts of England; some of the rural traditions also differ. However, it is one of the strengths of the Bill that the registrar and the tribunal will be able to hear detailed evidence about the specific circumstances and characteristics of the area in which the applicant proposes to hunt and judge matters on a case-by-case basis. That will be the case in Wales as much as it is in England. However, the requirement to apply the least suffering test applies uniformly across England and Wales and therefore one set of rules and regulations should apply to both countries.

Lembit Öpik: I do not want to interrupt the Minister's flow, but I would like him to answer one question. If the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh people came to a view about the details of the hunting settlement that was different from the decision made at Westminster, what would the Minister say to them? The Welsh Assembly could say, ''Why should we have to endure the Westminster settlement, even though we can show that the Welsh people have a different view?''

Alun Michael: The Assembly has not said any such thing. The Assembly as a whole and individual Members have had every opportunity to make their views clear and to make persuasive arguments to suggest that the legislation should be different or should apply differently in Wales. I would have taken any such arguments into account.
 Scotland is not relevant. The settlement is different and Scotland had a different legal system even before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. 
 Amendment No. 190 would allow the Assembly to vary the exceptions in the Bill. That would lead to a disparity in the basic rules on hunting with dogs in England and Wales. There is no reason why tribunal members and even the registrar should not be Welsh and have personal experience of the nature of the 
 countryside in Wales. The important thing is that the registrar and the tribunal should decide cases before them on the basis of the relevant evidence and the principles set out in the Bill, rather than on their own personal experience, which may or may not be relevant. The tribunal as constituted, with a balance of members who have animal welfare and land management experience, will exercise a judicial function and should do so properly and impartially, which is the way in which tribunals operate. 
 Amendment No. 196 is unnecessary because of the Government's commitment to treating the English and Welsh languages equally and the requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn that that is the case. It will be possible for people to apply for registration in Welsh and to inspect a Welsh version of the register. Tribunal proceedings will be conducted in Welsh when those involved want that. 
 Of course it is important that, where appropriate, the tribunal sits in Wales. I have indicated that that will be the case. However, the amendments would force tribunals to meet in Wales even if both sides wanted to meet elsewhere. As one or two Members have acknowledged, the geography of Wales sometimes leads people gathering together for a meeting that is entirely about Welsh issues to do so in, say, Shrewsbury. Where that is appropriate and suitable and that is what those who are being heard want, I see no reason to legislate against it. It seems fairly unlikely that that would be the case very often, but why should we say in the Bill that it could not happen if both sides want it to happen? That would be complete nonsense, and it is the difference between devolution and nationalism.

James Gray: The Minister was praying in aid the submission of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in Wales, but the fact is that it never reported on hunting. There were 878 submissions to that Committee, of which 855 were strongly in favour of hunting, only 23 were opposed, and there were a further 135 pre-printed postcards against.

Peter Bradley: What does this have to do with the amendments?

James Gray: The Committee, which the Minister prayed in aid, never reported, so that is what it has to do with them. If it had, it would have said that the people of Wales were strongly in favour.

Alun Michael: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is completely well informed, but I leave it to the Assembly to put him right. He has developed an interest in the National Assembly for Wales, which is welcome.
 Let me assure hon. Members that the Lord Chancellor will make proper provision for hearings in Welsh. The Welsh Language Act 1993 will ensure that hearings in Wales can be held in Welsh if that is the desire of those involved. In summary, the English and Welsh languages will be treated equally. 
 Appellants will be welcome to use Welsh. The tribunal will ensure that applicants throughout Wales are able to have their appeal conducted in Welsh if they wish. Procedures will be in place to provide a bilingual service for appeal hearings. There is no added expense to an appellant if they opt for an appeal to be conducted in Welsh. 
 Those are the arrangements that the Lord Chancellor will put in place. That is how tribunals are dealt with in Wales, and it is the right way to deal with the issue. Today's debate has been about obfuscation and nationalism, not devolution. There are already mechanisms to deal with devolution, and for Welsh issues to be dealt with appropriately under legislation of this sort. 
The Chairman rose—

Peter Luff: Will the Minister give way?

George Stevenson: I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. The Minister did not grant an intervention.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 19.

Question accordingly negatived.

Hywel Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Can you give me your guidance? Would I have been entitled to a summation at the end of that short debate?

George Stevenson: Indeed. Any Member who catches my eye is entitled to make a contribution. I looked around carefully, but I certainly did not see the hon. Member rise. I hope that the Committee will understand.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I genuinely ask for guidance. I imagined that you chose not to call me because you had decided that there had been sufficient debate on the amendments. I had hoped to press the Minister on a point that he did not respond to in his summation of the debate.

George Stevenson: That is a helpful intervention, because my estimation of the debate, which is very important, was that the Committee had exercised itself comprehensively on the issues. I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarfon does not take any offence. I simply did not see him rise to intervene.

Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. This is a genuine question. Would it be possible for the hon. Member for Caernarfon to make his points in the clause stand part debate, if he still feels that he needs to make them?

George Stevenson: The hon. Member is experienced enough to know that that is not a point of order. I should not have to tell him that from the Chair. It is up to hon. Members to make their contribution when they want to make it. You are entitled to know that I look around the Committee assiduously—you will have seen that—to try to ensure that Back Benchers, particularly, have every opportunity to make their points, and I shall continue to do that.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 304, in
clause 9, page 3, line 32, after 'registrar'')', insert 
 'who is appropriately qualified in terms of subsection (1A) below'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 305, in
clause 9, page 3, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(1A) ''Appropriately qualified'' means that the individual— 
 (a) has a good knowledge of hunting with dogs in the United Kingdom or Ireland, and 
 (b) is entirely impartial as to hunting, and ''impartial'' means that he has had no association with hunting or any organization which directly or indirectly supports, opposes, or has supported or opposed, hunting, and 
 (c) he neither has nor has had any membership or affiliations at any time with a party represented in the House of Commons.'.

James Gray: We now move on to discuss the nature of the registrar and, under schedule 2 later, the nature of the tribunal. Opposition Members have not accepted many of the provisions that we have discussed so far—certainly not the definitions in clause 8. None the less, in the interest of good management of the nation, it is important that we arrive at a tribunal and registrar that will achieve the widest possible acceptance among the people who will appear before them.
 Therefore, we shall seek to amend and improve the sections of the Bill that deal with the registrar and tribunal in the hope that, through good cross-party consensus, we achieve some form of understanding among people in the countryside, whether they are in favour or opposed to hunting, so that, as the Minister often says, we can put the issue to bed. He is always saying that we must settle the matter. We can do that only if the registrar and tribunal are respected by people from both sides of the argument. 
 Our decisions will not be unanimous. Inevitably, some will oppose the registrar for one reason or another, but we must try to find a solution that is broadly respected. This group of amendments is the first stage in doing that. 
 If the registrar is not to deal with the question of whether hunting should be banned but is only to apply the Bill in the best possible way, he must be free of any proven bias. Amendment No. 305 particularly addresses that. It provides that he should have a reasonable knowledge of hunting with dogs, which is an obvious prerequisite, but suggests that he must be 
''entirely impartial as to hunting''.
 It then defines impartiality as having had no connection with 
''any organization which directly or indirectly supports, opposes, or has supported or opposed, hunting'',
 It also requires that he has no party affiliations, which seems eminently sensible. The amendment describes a classic civil servant figure, albeit someone who has some knowledge of hunting.

Ian Cawsey: The amendment states that the registrar should not have had
''any membership or affiliations . . . with a party represented in the House of Commons.''
 Why is it restricted in that way? For instance, the Green Party is represented in the Lords but not the Commons. What about the British National Party? According to the amendment, the registrar could be a member of one of those parties.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. If we were to extend the definition under paragraph (c) of the amendment to any political party that ever existed anywhere, there would be a problem with the definition under English law. The only definition of ''political party'' is in the context of this place and the other Assemblies and Parliaments established by the Government.
 An even more important point is that Members in this place, who are members of the Labour party, Liberal Democrat party, Conservative party, Welsh nationalist party and so on, have decided how the Bill will be constructed. They are the people who have had a say. If it can be shown that it was members of the Labour party who decided to ban foxhunting—

Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: In a moment. I recognise the fact that the hon. Gentleman has his hand up, and if he wants to go to the lavatory, it is just across the Corridor, first on the right. [Interruption.] Perhaps Members can contain themselves for one moment and allow me to answer the previous question. I shall consider to respond to them, but they are too excitable.
 The important point is that it is the Labour party in this House, not the Conservative party or the Welsh nationalist party, that has decided to introduce the Bill. The Labour party is determined to ban hunting and the Conservative party, with one or two exceptions—I know that there are one or two honourable exceptions in the Labour party as well—is seeking to save hunting. That is clear and straightforward. It is therefore important that neither people who are members of, affiliated to or supporters of the Labour party nor people who are members of the Conservative party should become registrars. That is perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Tony Banks: Sometimes I feel the will to live slipping away. Although the list in amendment No. 305 sounds fine in theory, if we choose someone who is very familiar with hunting, that individual—it could be ''she'', although we keep saying ''he''—will probably have come to a conclusion on the matter? How are we going to find that out?

James Gray: For the sake of good order, I should make it plain that when I refer to ''he'' when discussing the registrar or tribunal, I mean ''he or she''. It might be a little otiose if I did that every time.

Edward Garnier: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Gray: If my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, all that I have said so far is that I beg to move the amendment, yet Members are jumping up all over the place. We have a limited amount of time.
 Broadly speaking, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) was saying that if people know about an issue, they should not be able to judge on it. There are many members of the League Against Cruel Sports who know a great deal about hunting with dogs. I pay tribute to them. Three or four of them came out with me and the Avon Vale hunt on Saturday. I am glad to say that three were carted off by the police in handcuffs, but they were none the less there and followed reasonably well during the day. Those people believe that they know a fair bit about foxhunting, albeit that they have come to a conclusion that I believe is incorrect. 
 Similar provisions to my proposal apply in many other areas. Magistrates are knowledgeable on various matters, so are allowed to be magistrates. They are not, however, allowed to be biased one way or the other. The main purpose of the amendments—I do not want to be bogged down by frivolous interventions—is to lay down the nature of the registrar and say that he must not be biased in any one of a list of different ways. 
 Before I go on to talk about the registrar, I shall expand a little on bias and the importance of not having it. We should not allow bias to enter our discussions in this place, and the registrar should keep free of it. The Committee will remember that on Tuesday, when we discussed the 2,711 foxes caught in Wandsworth, the Minister sought to belittle the intervention that I made by saying that 
''an organisation called Humane Urban Wildlife Deterrence also works in that area. I have a letter from that organisation stating the figures given by Wildlife Management Ltd. are total nonsense and that there are no more than 200 adult foxes in the entire Wandsworth borough. It would appear that the hon. Gentleman made his point on a somewhat shallow basis''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 21 January 2002; c. 359.]
 The Minister based his refutation of my point on what Humane Urban Wildlife Deterrence had said, seeking to argue that that was a scientific, independent organisation and that he had listened carefully to what it had to say. 
 I can tell the Committee that that organisation is headed by Mr. John Bryant, who, I have discovered, is a consultant to the political animal lobby, the organisation that gave £1 million to the Labour party a year or two ago. He worked for it on the Government's Hunting Bill of 2000–01. He has been appointed president of the Dulwich branch of the RSPCA. He is a founder member of Protect Our Wild Animals, which was formed in 1998. He has appeared in court as an expert witness in several cases involving the snaring of wild animals, and we have discovered that he was a paid adviser to the hon. Member for Worcester during the passage of the Wild Mammals 
 (Hunting with Dogs) Bill in 1997. He has been massively committed to the banning of foxhunting for many years. The Minister has tried to pray him in aid in refuting a reasonable point about foxes in Wandsworth.

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I would rather not. [Interruption.] The only reason I am a little reluctant to give way is because we are discussing whether it is reasonable for the registrar and the tribunal to be biased in any one of the three ways that I have laid out. When the Minister sought to refute my perfectly legitimate point about foxes in Wandsworth, he chose to quote a person without referring to their being biased.

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: Just a minute. The hon. Gentleman should pull himself together. The Minister prayed in aid that organisation in an attempt to show that a point, which I had made about urban foxes, was incorrect. He said that the organisation is good, scientific and important, which is why we should listen to it.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: In a moment, I will happily do so. The Minister claimed that I was wrong to make that point.

Judy Mallaber: On a point of order, is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Minister, but not to allow him to intervene to put the record straight?

George Stevenson: It is up to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether to give way. If any other Member wants to catch my eye to make a contribution, they are entitled to do so. His point about impartiality is legitimate and within the scope of the amendments, but it has been well made.

James Gray: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: In a moment.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, since the hon. Gentleman referred to fairness and impartiality, is it in order for him to distort and misrepresent what I said to the Committee? He does it regularly and it is part of his juvenile approach. Do we have to put up with it?

George Stevenson: We have to put up with a lot. I have chaired Committees for a few years, which is a great privilege, and, with the greatest respect, I have come to realise how thick-skinned and determined Members are, which is good. The matter concerns the debate and is not a point of order, as the Minister knows.

James Gray: My point is extremely important.

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: No, I will not. I want to make it plain to members of the Committee that I will take your advice, Mr. Stevenson, and shall not give way again on hunting foxes in Wandsworth.

George Stevenson: Order. Unless the amendments refer to whether hon. Members should give way, I shall not
 allow a debate on the matter. The hon. Gentleman has, however, made his point.

James Gray: You said that I had made my point, Mr. Stevenson, and that if I gave way to a variety of Government Members we would be involved in a debate about foxes in Wandsworth. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. Experienced Members are forcing me to bring the Committee to order. It is your Committee; it is not the Chair's Committee. The hon. Gentleman does not have to explain why he is not giving way. He either gives way or he does not.
Mr. Gray rose—

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I have no intention of giving way to the Minister or to anybody else. The important point is not whether 2,711 foxes were caught in Wandsworth. The central point is that the Minister chose to pray in aid a source that on investigation turns out to be massively biased, because it was paid for by the lobby to ban foxhunting. The source is biased. A Minister of the Crown—

George Stevenson: Order. I am struggling to understand why the point that the hon. Gentleman is continuing to repeat is relevant to this particular amendment, which concerns the qualifications and impartiality of the registrar.

James Gray: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. The relevance is that we must be absolutely clear that the registrar and the tribunal must be totally devoid of any bias or any previous record on hunting foxes or other mammals with dogs. I intend to bring the Committee back to some sensible consideration of these weighty matters.
 The registrar will be asked to make a very difficult and important decision everytime someone comes to him. That decision will affect agricultural process in the area relating to the application. It will affect the well-being, welfare and livelihood of the people making the application. It is, therefore, incredibly important—as important as if he were a judge or a magistrate—that the registrar should be, and seem to be, entirely dispassionate and unbiased. He should consider the facts of the matter on their merits with no previous record on the issue. 
 The amendments would do three things. First, they would ensure that the registrar has an intimate knowledge of the area so that he can work out whether the utility tests apply. I cite the National Farmers Union on the matter of localism: 
''As we have consistently pointed out, the conditions under which pest control operations are required are infinitely variable in relation to such factors as species, methods and topography. Local confidence in the registrar will be hard to establish given his likely geographical and practical remoteness from the problem which is the purpose of the application. Independence is no substitute for a balanced and detailed understanding of often complex and controversial issues.''
 That is terribly important. The registrar should know what he is talking about, and should have 
 genuine knowledge of hunting with dogs and the area in which the application is being made. We were discussing the matter with regard to Wales, and the same applies to the rest of England. We must be certain that the registrar has a decent amount of knowledge.

Rob Marris: Given that we are drafting legislation, does the hon. Gentleman not think that ''a good knowledge'' is rather vague? Proposed subsection 1A(c) in amendment No. 305 concerns impartiality. A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that the registrar would have to take decisions as if he were a judge or a magistrate. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that magistrates are allowed to be members of political parties, as are judges—for example, his moonlighting friend, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough?

James Gray: Once again, Government Members seem more determined to make cheap points than to discuss the central importance of the amendments. The amendments would establish the authority of the registrar and the authority of the tribunal. Not only should they have authority and be dispassionate and unbiased, but they should be seen to be unbiased, while having knowledge of the subject.

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: No, I will not. I am replying to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. The hon. Gentleman made the point that judges and magistrates are allowed to be members of political parties. That is quite correct, but their membership of such parties is irrelevant to their judgment of cases that come before them. It is unlikely that they would come to the conclusion that a person was guilty or innocent because of membership of a political party. However, their judgment on a matter of this sort, which is intensely political in nature, may well be changed by membership of a particular party, and that should not happen. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I hope that I have answered it reasonably satisfactorily.
 It seems to us that the registrar and the tribunal should know what they are talking about and the area concerned. That is important for both sides of the Committee—[Interruption.]. The noisiness of Labour Members suggests that they do not want the registrar to be dispassionate. They do not like the suggestion that his standing should be above reproach. Members of the League Against Cruel Sports and Labour Members of Parliament are happy for him to be biased. I am not. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the registrar and the tribunal are acceptable 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.